Neglected information and opinion relative to Israel, the Middle East and the immediate world.

No Big Surprise – Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount in Jerusalem was supposed to have been for the Jews!

Shifting Sands Of Temple Mount ‘Status Quo’

Video: History of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem

www.israel-commentary.org

By Hillel Fendel and Chaim Silberstein
The Jewish Press
December 5, 2014

Here’s a little-known fact: The Dome of the Rock – the magnificent structure that stands atop the site of the Holy of Holies – was originally built up not for Muslims; rather, it, or its precursor, was built for the Jewish people.

How do we know this? We rely on the late Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and on a Byzantine historian from the 7th century.

Rabbi Goren, in his classic work The Temple Mount, wrote that the silver-domed Al-Aksa Mosque, at the Mount’s southern end opposite the gold Dome of the Rock, points southward toward Mecca and was built as a Muslim house of prayer. “At the request of the Jews,” Rabbi Goren continues, “Omar built the Dome of the Rock sanctuary to serve as a house of prayer for the Jews. This was after the Jews showed him the site where the Holy Temple had stood – and it does not point to Mecca.”

Most certainly one of Rabbi Goren’s sources was the Byzantine historian Theophanes. Written in Greek and translated into English in 1839, the following relevant passage from Theophanes was cited by English historian Guy Le Strange in his 1890 work History of Jerusalem Under the Moslems (p.11):

“In this year [635 C.E.], Omar … (continued below Wikipedia entry)
(From Wikipedia): Umar (or Omar) was the second Rashidun Caliph and reigned during 634-644. Umar’s caliphate is notable for its vast conquests, aided by brilliant field commanders, he was able to incorporate present day Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and part of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and south western Pakistan into the empire of the Muslims. All of these were permanent conquests. The Byzantines lost more than three fourths of their territory and in Persia, the Sassanid empire ceased to exist.[1])

… began to restore the Temple at Jerusalem, for the building, in truth, no longer then stood firmly founded, but had fallen to ruin. Now when Omar inquired the cause, the Jews answered saying, ‘Unless thou throw down the Cross, which stands on the Mt. of Olives, the building of the Temple will never be firmly founded.’ Thereupon Omar threw down the Cross at that place, in order that the building [of the Temple] might be made firm…”

Thus we see that the Dome of the Rock, or its precursor by several decades, was built not for Muslims but for Jews, and was even supposed to be a “more firmly founded” version of the Holy Temple.

How ironic that this is the true background of the building that now symbolizes, throughout the world, Muslim control of Judaism’s holiest site – and the ban on Jewish prayer there.

Israelis officials have repeatedly promised of late, at the behest of pressure from without and within, not to change the “status quo” on the Temple Mount. Is it clear to all what exactly this means?

At the outset, it must be explained that the halachic aspects of visiting the Temple Mount are beyond the scope of this article. The issue is a matter of dispute among leading rabbis, and the opinions range from “forbidden because it leads to bloodshed,” “forbidden because we are impure,” “permitted if you know the halachic boundaries and precautions,” to “important to do so in order to retain the holy site for the Jewish people.”

When Israeli, American, and other diplomats speak of maintaining the status quo, they generally mean that Muslims must be allowed free entry for worship or playing soccer, while Jewish access must continue to be restricted.

However, some recent historical background is in order, showing that what people think is the “status quo” is actually not that at all. For one thing, how far back do we go when referring to the “status quo”?

There is much historical evidence that up until three centuries ago Jews historically prayed on the holy site relatively freely. Maimonides, for instance, wrote that he made an annual holiday to commemorate his visit to Jerusalem, on which occasion he “prayed in the Great and Holy House.” Many believe this is a clear reference to the site of the Holy Temple, and that he referred to it by the same phrase we recite in the beginning of the third blessing (Rachem) in the Grace After Meals. (The Rambam also held that nowadays, the site of the Temple is not absolutely forbidden for entry; rather (“Laws of the Chosen House 7:7), “No one may enter it except the places that one is permitted to enter.”

Thus, we must entertain the likelihood that Jews did pray on the Temple Mount at various times since the destruction. Certainly, however, since about the 1600s, Jewish prayer has not been held at the holy site. This was the “status quo” – until the Six-Day War of 1967.

This miraculous war brought about the unification of Jerusalem, our return to the Western Wall, and, for the first time since Bar Kochba, Jewish control over the site of the Holy Temple. One of the first things Israel did with this prize was, at the initiative of then-defense minister Moshe Dayan, to relinquish most of it, giving day-to-day control to the Muslim Waqf (religious trust).

Still, however, some Jewish visitation rights were ensured. In fact, Dayan instituted the following rules after the Six-Day War (based on research by Jerusalem expert and Keep Jerusalem Advisory Board member Nadav Shragai):

Jews are permitted to visit the Temple Mount, but forbidden to pray there.

Israel’s police maintain law and order in the sacred compound.

Israeli sovereignty and law is applied to the Temple Mount, as to the other parts of Jerusalem.

Other rules added later stipulated that Jews and other non-Muslims would enter the Mount only via the Mughrabi Gate, located at the center of the Western Wall, and that flags may not be unfurled on the Mount.

The situation today would be barely recognizable even to Dayan. For one thing, the “unrestricted Jewish visits” have been replaced by strict hours: Jews may ascend for three hours in the morning and one in the afternoon, only five days a week. Even these few hours are often removed from the Jewish itinerary when Arab incitement and unrest portends violence in the area.

In addition, religious Jews may not visit in large groups, and are often forced to wait for hours until those in front of them in line have completed their visits. Even then, they frequently are not allowed in.

Want to wave a flag? If it’s a Hamas or Palestinian Authority banner, no problem; the ban is enforced only in the case of Israeli flags.

Thus, when Israel is pressured to retain the “status quo” on the Temple Mount, it should respond, “Fine – we’ll take the ‘status quo’ as set by Moshe Dayan in 1967″ – restoring full Israeli sovereignty to the holy site, full authority to Israel’s police to act to maintain law and order, and the option of full Jewish accessibility.

This is crucial not only for the sake of emphasizing and actualizing the intrinsic and historical Jewish rights and bonds to the Mount, and not only in order to guarantee freedom of religion for all. Most essentially, it is a key step in guaranteeing the integrity of Jerusalem and strengthening it as the eternal capital of Israel and the Jewish people.

Please visit our website, www.keepjerusalem.org, to keep apprised of developments in Jerusalem and to see how you can help preserve a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty forever.
About the Author: Chaim Silberstein is president of Keep Jerusalem-Im Eshkachech and the Jerusalem Capital Development Fund. He was formerly a senior adviser to Israel’s minister of tourism. Hillel Fendel, past senior editor at Israel National News/Arutz-7, is a veteran writer on Jerusalem affairs. Both have lived in Jerusalem and now reside in Beit El.

jsk (PS The reader will notice that I included two names for the Caliph – Umar and Omar, because that is the way I saw it spelled in different references and concluded it was really the same guy. Well, I just got a note from a very well respected Middle Eastern historian. It follows and clears up a lot of the historical and chronological discrepancies I have found in my own research. I love the professor’s remarks because now I don’t have to worry about a lot of that stuff. Here is his comment:) jsk

Dear Jerry,
Without reading the whole entry, there is much confusion between two Umars, both Calphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_II

Things which the first Umar did are thought as have been done by the second and vice versa.
I am afraid that modern books fell in this trap following classic stories by Muslims.
This is not the only confusion regarding the early history of Islam.
Some modern researchers “gave up” and claim that in reality there is no reliable source for the early days of Islam. Everything written is based on rumors which one said to one who to another and another (Hadith, stories). There are Muslims who feel the same vis-a-vis the oral traditions, and relate only to the Koran, like our Karaiites.